CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Raum v. Restaurant Associates, Inc.

This dissenting opinion argues that the plaintiff, a homosexual partner, should have standing to sue for wrongful-death damages under EPTL 5-4.1. The dissent contends that the motion court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's wrongful-death claim by narrowly interpreting 'surviving spouse'. It asserts that denying homosexual partners, who are legally barred from marrying, the right to sue constitutes an invidious distinction violating the Equal Protection Clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions. The opinion references precedents like Braschi v Stahl Assocs. Co. to support a broader, functional interpretation of the statute to promote public welfare, and distinguishes other cases like Matter of Cooper and Matter of Secord v Fischetti. It concludes that excluding homosexual life partners from the class of persons with standing lacks a rational basis, as it is unrelated to the statute's goals, the State's marriage policy, or administrative convenience, and therefore the decision below should be reversed and the wrongful-death claim reinstated.

Wrongful DeathEqual ProtectionHomosexual PartnersSurviving SpouseEPTL 5-4.1Statutory InterpretationConstitutional LawSame-Sex MarriageRational Basis ReviewStanding to Sue
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Seo v. UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc.

The claimant, a limousine driver for UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc., was injured in an automobile accident while driving home from work. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied benefits, ruling the injuries did not arise from employment. Eagle Insurance Company, the no-fault carrier, appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Board, which initially reversed the WCLJ, deeming the claimant an 'outside worker' eligible for 'portal to portal' coverage. UTOG appealed this reversal, but the full Board rescinded the decision and referred it back. Upon reconsideration, the Board panel determined that Eagle lacked standing as it was not a party in interest under Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 and affirmed the WCLJ's denial of benefits. Eagle then appealed to the Appellate Division, which reversed the Board's decision, citing prior cases, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Automobile AccidentLimousine DriverWorkers' Compensation BenefitsStanding to AppealNo-Fault Insurance CarrierOutside WorkerPortal to Portal CoverageAppellate ReviewBoard ReconsiderationRemittal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Turi v. Five L. Enterprises, Inc.

In this workers' compensation case, the claimant's spouse died in a 1993 work-related accident, leading to an award of death benefits. The employer's workers’ compensation carrier was directed to deposit a substantial sum into the Aggregate Trust Fund (ATF) but failed to do so. The claimant sought to impose a 20% penalty on the carrier for this untimely payment, arguing it violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f). The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the claimant lacked standing to request such a penalty. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that issues regarding late deposits into the ATF are between the ATF and the carrier, not the claimant, and are governed by separate regulations (12 NYCRR 393.2).

Aggregate Trust FundDeath BenefitsPenalty ImpositionTimely DepositStandingWorkers' Compensation CarrierWorkers' Compensation BoardLate PaymentActuarial ComputationJudicial Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pelham Council of Governing Boards v. City of Mount Vernon

This case addresses a special proceeding initiated by the Pelham Council of Governing Boards, an unincorporated entity comprising the Villages of Pelham and Pelham Manor, the Town of Pelham, and the Pelham Union Free School District. The petitioner sought to annul a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Mount Vernon in January 2000, which rezoned a 14.55-acre site for the Sanford Boulevard Redevelopment Project. The core issue was the petitioner's standing to bring the action. The court examined associational standing, noting that while three of the four member municipalities might have individual standing under the Westchester County Administrative Code, the Pelham Union Free School District would not. Ultimately, the court determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate proper representation of its members' views or a necessity for organizational standing in this context, granting the respondents' defense and dismissing the petition for lack of standing.

Organizational StandingAssociational StandingLand UseZoningMunicipal LawCapacity to SueEnvironmental Review (SEQRA)Mount Vernon City CouncilPelham MunicipalitiesSchool District Standing
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 1983

Claim of Molyneux v. New York Telephone Co.

Claimant, a tester for 35 years, sustained a work-related back injury. Both physicians diagnosed him with permanent partial disability. The employer offered sedentary work with reduced hours, but the claimant retired, citing severe pain from prolonged sitting/standing, inability to lift, and the exacerbation of his condition due to crowded public transport commutes, which his own and the employer's physician also advised against. The Workers’ Compensation Board credited his testimony, concluding his retirement was not solely due to non-disability factors. The board's decision was subsequently affirmed.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketRetirementCommuting IssuesPhysician's OpinionSedentary Work OfferBoard Decision AffirmedSubstantial EvidenceBack Injury
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosario v. Sullivan

This social security disability benefits case involves plaintiff Genevieve Rosario, who sustained injuries in a 1989 automobile accident. She applied for disability benefits, which were denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and subsequently upheld by the Appeals Council, on the basis that she retained the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work. The District Court reviewed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. The court found that the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, particularly highlighting the improper consideration of Rosario's return to work during a potential trial work period and misinterpretation of medical assessments regarding sedentary work requirements. The court emphasized that the concept of sedentary work typically does not involve alternating between sitting and standing, as required by Rosario. Consequently, both cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings were denied, and the case was remanded to the ALJ for clarification on the precise period of disability and the subsequent trial work period.

Social Security DisabilitySedentary WorkResidual Functional CapacityAdministrative Law JudgeRemandMedical EvidenceTrial Work PeriodLumbar SprainCervical SprainAutomobile Accident
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bennion v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

The dissenting judges, Doerr and Boehm, concur with the majority's decision to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action. However, they respectfully dissent from the majority's determination that the plaintiff is entitled to recover under Labor Law § 240 (1). The dissent argues that the plaintiff's injury, which occurred when he fell on an elevated work surface while installing a collar on flexible duct work, does not fall within the "special hazards" contemplated by Labor Law § 240 (1). They assert that these hazards are limited to specific gravity-related accidents like falling from a height or being struck by improperly secured objects, not merely any peril tangentially connected to gravity. Citing various precedents, the dissenting judges contend that the plaintiff's injury, a fall from a standing to a sitting position on the same work surface, does not meet the statutory criteria. Therefore, they would modify the order by denying the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action.

Labour LawConstruction SafetyGravity-Related AccidentsElevated Work SurfaceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryWorkers' RightsStatutory InterpretationWorkplace Safety
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Small v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc.

Plaintiffs Disabled in Action (DIA) and Thomas K. Small (Small), representing themselves and a class of wheelchair users, sued General Nutrition Companies, Inc. (GNC) for alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York City Human Rights Law, claiming GNC stores were inaccessible. Defendant GNC moved to dismiss the action for lack of standing and to deny class certification. The court granted GNC's motion regarding DIA's organizational standing (with prejudice) and associational standing claims (without prejudice, with leave to amend). For plaintiff Small, the court denied GNC's motion concerning one specific GNC store where Small established standing, but granted it for other stores (without prejudice, with leave to amend). The court deferred ruling on defendant's motion to deny class certification.

ADA Title IIIStandingOrganizational StandingAssociational StandingWheelchair AccessibilityArchitectural BarriersClass ActionMotion to DismissInjunctive ReliefInjury in Fact
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. County of Erie

This appellate case concerns the standing of petitioners, Building and Construction Trades Council of Buffalo and Vicinity and Operating Engineers Local 17 Training Fund, to challenge a public works contract awarded by Erie County to Tom Greenauer Development, Inc. Petitioners argued the contract was invalid due to Greenauer's non-compliance with a local law requiring a certified worker training program. The Supreme Court's decision granting the petition was reversed on appeal, with the appellate court concluding that petitioners lacked standing. The court held that petitioners failed to demonstrate an actual injury in fact distinct from the general public, deeming their alleged harm speculative and insufficient for associational or organizational standing. A dissenting opinion argued that petitioners did have standing, emphasizing the local law's intent to promote apprenticeship programs and the direct impact of the county's non-compliance on petitioners' ability to participate.

StandingPublic ContractsLocal LawWorker Training ProgramApprenticeshipErie CountyCPLR Article 78PreemptionERISAInjury in Fact
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of LTV Aerospace and Defense Co. v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of LTV Steel Co. (In re Chateaugay Corp.)

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of LTV Aerospace and Defense Company (Aerospace Committee) appealed a Bankruptcy Court's November 5, 1991, order that authorized LTV Steel to make payments to the J & L Hourly Pension Plan. The Aerospace Committee claimed standing based on the potential consolidation of LTV estates, a prospective claim for contribution against LTV Steel, and the effect on their cash distributions. The District Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Aerospace Committee lacked standing. The court found their asserted interests too indirect and speculative, emphasizing that a party must be directly and adversely affected pecuniarily by a bankruptcy order to have standing for appeal.

Bankruptcy AppealStanding DoctrinePecuniary InterestCreditors' RightsPension Benefit Guaranty CorporationERISAChapter 11 BankruptcyCorporate ReorganizationJoint and Several LiabilityControlled Group
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 585 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational